The Indiana Supreme Court issued an important ruling on June 26, 2026, regarding the scope of cross-appeals in the case of Timothy Stabosz v. Shaw Friedman. This decision affects how parties can appeal trial court decisions, particularly when a motion to correct error is involved. The ruling clarifies that a party can raise issues beyond those initially presented in a motion to correct error during a cross-appeal.
The case arose from a defamation lawsuit where Shaw Friedman, a former LaPorte County attorney, sued Timothy Stabosz, the county auditor, over statements Stabosz made about Friedman’s professional conduct. After a jury ruled in favor of Stabosz, Friedman sought a new trial, claiming several errors in the trial process. The trial court initially deemed Friedman’s motion denied but later granted it, leading to confusion over the appeal process.
Stabosz argued that the trial court's belated grant of the motion to correct error was void since it had already been deemed denied. He appealed this decision, prompting Friedman to file a cross-appeal, raising additional issues not included in his original motion. The Court of Appeals sided with Stabosz, stating that Friedman could only appeal issues related to his motion to correct error. This led Friedman to petition the Indiana Supreme Court for further review.
The Indiana Supreme Court, led by Justice Molter, ruled in favor of Friedman, stating that his cross-appeal was not limited to the issues raised in his motion to correct error. The court emphasized that the belated order from the trial court was voidable, allowing Stabosz to challenge it through his appeal. The court stated, “When the nonmovant appeals from a trial court’s order belatedly granting a motion to correct error, the movant may cross-appeal any issues it preserved in the trial court, not just issues in its motion to correct error.”
This ruling clarifies the procedural framework for cross-appeals in Indiana, particularly in cases where a trial court grants a motion to correct error after it has been deemed denied. The court's decision ensures that parties can fully present their arguments during a cross-appeal, promoting fairness and efficiency in the legal process.
The impact of this ruling is significant for future cases in Indiana. It establishes a clearer pathway for parties to appeal decisions and ensures that they are not limited in their ability to raise issues during a cross-appeal. This ruling may encourage more comprehensive appeals, as parties will feel more secure in raising all relevant issues, not just those initially presented in a motion to correct error.
Going forward, this decision sets a precedent that could influence how attorneys approach appeals in Indiana. It highlights the importance of understanding the nuances of appellate procedure and the rights of parties involved in litigation. Legal experts anticipate that this ruling will lead to more robust appeals, as parties will be more inclined to raise all pertinent issues without fear of being limited by the scope of their motions.
The case has been remanded to the Court of Appeals to consider the additional issues raised in Friedman’s cross-appeal that were previously ignored. This indicates that the legal battle is not yet over, and further developments in this case are expected as it returns to the appellate court for additional review.